OSx86

Posted 30 July 2006 - 04:20 PM

A Nonny Moose

Proud PPC User

Members

2,421 posts

Gender:Male

I tend to put OSX86 in the same category as XPostFacto. Both allow you to do overt infringement (let's not get into a consumer rights argument, as consumers have no rights). Is it a bad thing? Not when you consider the small number of people actually doing it and the massive opportunity costs involved (such as possible software incompatibility, an inherently unstable system, and time spent in working around security updates). Those three things alone won't allow most casual users to pirate OS X.

Posted 31 July 2006 - 12:05 PM

Tom Schara

InsanelyMac Protégé

Members

10 posts

Location:Christchurch, New Zealand

Each of these three groups might be treated individually or they may all three be wrong - I'll let you decide. I can tell you, however, that there is a very large number of OSx86 users (myself included) who wouldn't have considered buying a Mac a year ago but, thanks to OSx86, are looking forward to purchasing one.

A year ago, if you'd have suggested I buy a Mac, I probably would have laughed at you. In New Zealand, we pay a high premium for computers in general, and especially on Apple products, thanks to importation costs, lack of a large consumer base, and a generally horrible exchange rate. Even a lowly Mac Mini here is $1,600+. Compare that to the Pentium D 930 desktop I built for around the same cost, and it's pretty obvious why Apple products weren't high on the list of computers being considered. Now before someone points out that the $1,600 I'm quoting is in New Zealand Dollars, and not US Dollars, consider that if you earn $USD100,000 living in the US, you'll likely earn $NZD100,000 (or possibly slightly less) living in NZ, so the impact of that $1,600 purchase on me would be the same as the impact of a $USD1,600 purchase on someone living in the US.

I'm digressing a bit, but I thought it important to point out why Apple products weren't really an option when choosing computers. When I built my new desktop, I thought I'd give OS X a try, so I headed over here, found what I needed, and got OS X installed and running. Within a few short months, I was so hooked there was no way I could consider going back to Windows or Linux.

When it was time to replace my laptop this past month, I considered all of the options (Dell, Toshiba, HP, Acer, etc.) In looking at those options, I realised none of them were really what I wanted. So, I bit the bullet, and am typing this on a brand new 17" MacBook Pro. Not only did I end up buying an Apple computer because of my experience with OSx86, but I did so in a very big way. Between the laptop and the upgrade to 2GB RAM, this laptop came to almost $6,500. But I can honestly say it was the right choice, and I have no regrets in having spent that money.

Is running OSx86 moral? Morality is relative. Those who benefit from your actions may call those actions moral, while those who don't may label them amoral or immoral. In my case, I know Apple gained a sale and a very loyal user they would not otherwise have had. I was so happy with the construction and design of the MBP that I also bought a 30GB video iPod instead of the Creative MP3 player i had been considering. And, when it's time to replace my desktop, I will probably look in Apple's direction again.

While running OS X on non-Apple hardware is certainly illegal, I don't believe in my case, or in others like mine, that it was immoral.

Posted 31 July 2006 - 05:21 PM

Wardialer

InsanelyMac Protégé

Members

44 posts

here we go.. i'll try not to make this post too long.. so u actually might read it.right now intel apple and intel PC's are essentially the same except for the fancy design of the iMac which doesn't allow any other components to be changed by the end user (except ram/HD). so, since apple is making less hardware AND software than ever before... its critical that they have a product ppl can think of when APPLE is mentioned. steve jobs essentially saved a fortune by employing a very intelligent community as his BETA testers who were previously comprised of devout, biased mac retards, while restricting access to osx86 for the average joe... remember, money doesn't discriminate. to lose that product they paid so much to enclose and convince ppl is faster than the exact same hardware of higher clock speeds in an uglier machine would show those loyal mac elitists that they've been paying for style over substance for all these years, and that mac is not much of a company at all, especially not a friendly company that you would entrust to babysit your autistic nephew.so they embrace the console mentality. keeping it all in the family so that optimizations for code work in ALL of their computers, but not in anyone elses. gaming consoles do a lot more w/ a lot less power, simply because the developers only have one specific platform they have to code for and get the most out of.from a piracy standpoint, its a shady area that both parties benefit from. developers get exposure to new potential buyers w/o stabbing their original supporters in the back, while shady ppl get to try new things for free. check this interview out http://www.midiwarez...r_interview.htm .its all about the money and mac has advertising and brand recognition keeping them alive. their products come in as often as PC's (not emachines though... please stay away from emachines... im begging you) and i send a ridiculous amount of ipods out for service at work (be$t buy). but as long as silhouettes keep dancing, and frumpy office ppl keep embarassing themselves on TV, mac will convince the "GENERAL PUBLIC" that they are the best.

This topic is a very hard one to come up with a right answer, and I believe that the way things are, the only entity that can really decide wether or not this is "right or wrong" is apple. You can banter and babble on and on about pros and cons for either side of the debate, but when you get right down to it, we are stealing, no matter what level it is on, we are still stealing. The argument of "Well, we wouldn't of bought a mac anyway" can also be interpreted differently, depending on who the interpreter is; You can see it as a benefit to Apple because people will find they like to get a Mac, when otherwise they would not. However, there is also this interpretation;
would you go to the mall you can try on some clothes to see if you like/suit you, but you cannot keep them, and use them freely, that is theft, that is not right. If apple wanted you to be testing out their OS before you buy it, then they will offer such a thing, otherwise they do NOT wish to have their product being used for free, and you are in the wrong--end of story. The problems that arise here do not involve money, quiet frankly Apple probably doesn't give a rats a$$ wether or not we use OSX in a profit gain/loss sense, but the fact that their hard work is being used for free, when it is their product and are entitled to a payment for the service or goods they provide, regardless of wether you would buy it or not if you had the chance to.

Guest: Guest: Brian_*_*

Posted 01 August 2006 - 08:43 AM

Guest: Guest: Brian_*_*

Guests

The DMCA doesn't apply outside of the US, and while certain other laws may, they are by no means universal. Rational people have no problems breaking the DMCA. If you have ever ripped a DVD, hacked your cellphone so that you can upload ringtones, or decrypted a track you purchased on iTunes, you have broken the DMCA. That isn't a big deal for me. The DMCA is an unjust and unreasonable law that was put in by corporate interests. It does nothing to protect the small-time copyright holder. It has nothing to do with encouraging the arts, and nothing to do with protecting the public. It has everything to with keeping big media companies in business.

As for the EULA; EULAs are generally not considered legally-enforcable contracts. The EULA cannot offer any more restrictions than are already offered by copyright protection. Apple cannot, for example, say that you can't run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware and expect a court to uphold that restriction.

As for BitTorrent/Usenet/etc. - there we have something that is clearly illegal. Copyright infringement isn't particularly new, and it isn't limited to Apple. It's the same here as it is everwhere else.

Posted 01 August 2006 - 06:57 PM

AppleLegal

who wants a subpoena?

Members

89 posts

As for the EULA; EULAs are generally not considered legally-enforcable contracts. The EULA cannot offer any more restrictions than are already offered by copyright protection. Apple cannot, for example, say that you can't run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware and expect a court to uphold that restriction.

As for BitTorrent/Usenet/etc. - there we have something that is clearly illegal. Copyright infringement isn't particularly new, and it isn't limited to Apple. It's the same here as it is everwhere else.

However, Apple can go to court and say "He's hacking our OS. We dont want him to do that. We aslo want damages done - he now knows internal secrets of the OS.

Bittorrent and Usenet are PERFECTLY legal. They're protocol's for transfering files. Usenet wasnt even designed to trasnfer files - it was originally meant for Communications & transfering messages back in the 1970's & early 1980's. Bittorrent's used in World of Warcraft to transfer game patches. Also used by a movie studio to sell movies online - Warner Bro's i believe - hardly illegal.

Posted 01 August 2006 - 08:50 PM

However, Apple can go to court and say "He's hacking our OS. We dont want him to do that. We aslo want damages done - he now knows internal secrets of the OS.

Bittorrent and Usenet are PERFECTLY legal. They're protocol's for transfering files. Usenet wasnt even designed to trasnfer files - it was originally meant for Communications & transfering messages back in the 1970's & early 1980's. Bittorrent's used in World of Warcraft to transfer game patches. Also used by a movie studio to sell movies online - Warner Bro's i believe - hardly illegal.

And again, there is nothing illegal about releasing the tools to do OSX86. It only becomes illegal when those tools are used (similar to XPostFacto--it's merely a tool). Now when someone uses the tool and starts giving away OSX86, why would you not expect Apple to sue them into dust? Like it or not, as AppleLegal says, it's Apple's trade secrets.

Posted 02 August 2006 - 05:12 AM

brendankoch

InsanelyMac Protégé

Members

73 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Canada

This topic is a very hard one to come up with a right answer, and I believe that the way things are, the only entity that can really decide wether or not this is "right or wrong" is apple. You can banter and babble on and on about pros and cons for either side of the debate, but when you get right down to it, we are stealing, no matter what level it is on, we are still stealing. The argument of "Well, we wouldn't of bought a mac anyway" can also be interpreted differently, depending on who the interpreter is; You can see it as a benefit to Apple because people will find they like to get a Mac, when otherwise they would not. However, there is also this interpretation;would you go to the mall you can try on some clothes to see if you like/suit you, but you cannot keep them, and use them freely, that is theft, that is not right. If apple wanted you to be testing out their OS before you buy it, then they will offer such a thing, otherwise they do NOT wish to have their product being used for free, and you are in the wrong--end of story. The problems that arise here do not involve money, quiet frankly Apple probably doesn't give a rats a$$ wether or not we use OSX in a profit gain/loss sense, but the fact that their hard work is being used for free, when it is their product and are entitled to a payment for the service or goods they provide, regardless of wether you would buy it or not if you had the chance to.

You really cannot compare theft of intellectual property to theft of physical property. In your example of clothes if u were to steal some clothes so u could try them out (because for some strange reason the store won't let you try them on) and you decide that you don't like them, if you returned them to the store the store would not be able to sell them again and would lose money from having a product go to waste. The same would go for if you just disposed of the clothes.

Now if you were to download a piece of software illegally to try it out and decided you didn't like it obviously there is no option of returning anything here but if you can dispose of it. The software company really didn't lose any manufacturing costs because of you therefore they really didn't lose anything.

Posted 02 August 2006 - 07:25 PM

myzar

InsanelyMac Legend

Members

718 posts

Legal

There's no doubt that running OS X on your PC is illegal. If you used a torrent to download the installation disc, you're sharing copyrighted material. In the off-chance that you hacked it yourself, you're violating the EULA and the DMCA. Any way you look at it, it's obviously against the law.

The question here, though, is whether or not that's acceptable. The sharing of copyrighted material is something that many folks generally accept as wrong but do anyway (Feel free to argue that it's not wrong). But what about the acronyms of doom? Does Apple have the right (and there are a few legal battles in the past that apply here... I'll leave that to someone else to introduce into the debate) to restrict their operating system to their own hardware? Furthermore, is it wrong for them to prosecute anyone who tries to break that restriction, via the DMCA? Is the DMCA law just?

i could care less about any law and i've no concept or respect of copyright , actually the only fun in hacking and running it for me it's because it's supposed to be illegal and because i'm not supposed to use it

About apple right maybe but unless you live in some policia state like the usa again you couldn't care less

Moral

well it's not theft for sure because i'm not depriving anyone of anything , it's not a lost sale and lost money because i wouldn't never ever buy it so.....

Posted 04 August 2006 - 01:49 AM

A Nonny Moose

Proud PPC User

Members

2,421 posts

Gender:Male

About apple right maybe but unless you live in some policia state like the usa again you couldn't care lesswell it's not theft for sure because i'm not depriving anyone of anything , it's not a lost sale and lost money because i wouldn't never ever buy it so.....

Yes it is theft. You stole an item that you could have very well paid for. It's just like stealing a physical item.

Posted 04 August 2006 - 12:20 PM

Then there were none.

"Insert witty pop culture reference here"

Members

232 posts

Gender:Male

Location:England

At the end of the day, apple has gained from OS X 86 because its allowing an explosion in their marketshare.
Lets be honest, if a leak never happenend, would you even consider to buy an apple computer?

Guest: Al_*

Posted 04 August 2006 - 02:05 PM

It isn't clear why, as you say 'There's no doubt that running OS X on your PC is illegal'.

Violating the Eula is not illegal. It is not against the law in any jurisdiction in the OECD to violate a Eula, or any other sort of civil contract for that matter.

If you do not install your copy of OSX on more than one machine, you have broken no law. If you do install it on more than one machine, you have violated copyright, and that is illegal.

To use your legally obtained copy of OSX in ways that the maker sought to prohibit by post sales restrictions on its use is not even going to give rise to grounds for civil action. In no jurisdiction are post sales restrictions on use enforceable. In fact, in most OECD jurisdictions, and specifically in the EU, the attempt to impose post sales restrictions on use on grounds other than health and safety will be itself unlawful and anti competitive.

Microsoft cannot, for instance, prohibit you from running Office on Linux, if that is what takes your fancy.

Now we come to the DCMA. It is not clear to me that if you have bought a copy of OSX and then do things to it for the sole purpose of running it on a different computer, you are doing something illegal. Perhaps you have some source of legal advice, or some cases, which show this. If so, one would be interested to see postings.

Until then, my view is that to copy OSX in violation of copyright is illegal, but as long as you do not do that, you are probably within the law.

Guest: Guest: SemjaZa_*_*

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:20 AM

Apple should just start preparing for os x on pcs, I doubt they will be able to stop all hacking with new hardware locks in the kernel + more encrypted apps etc, so why not earn money on it?

Even the whole TPM concept is hilarious - anyone with a devkit can decrypt easily with a little knowledge...

There has even been a successfull test of a TPM emulator, tho - the kernel must be protected if running updates... I can not however, reveal the whereabouts of this emu - or who might have it and its not released, but I have seen it in action. There has been a debate about releasing it that resulted in a no for some reason...

And there are also projects like boomerang, that aims to reverse engineer asm to C code, and companies that do such for a living, though the current version of boomerang doesnt compile on intel macs without a bit of work... once this app or something like its up and running well on macs- the sources for the kernel, all encrypted apps etc - will be around... does work on windows tho - but then the symbols arent retrieved from the symbol stub section....

My point is - the number of tools to hack apples os with, and the knowledge will keep on groing - I doubt this big a community of users wont want to keep on tangling with the OS, its become a sport...

Posted 10 August 2006 - 07:35 PM

bwhsh8r

InsanelyMac Deity

Gurus

2,085 posts

Gender:Male

Location:The Machine

I think that its actuailly good for them because we are basicially doing all the work of porting it over, highlighting all the problems, showing them all the security flaws, beta testing theyre stuff on a hodge podge of hardware, giving them free advertisments, buying theyre software, and promoting osx... i dont run it and i hate apple tho....... but thats personal, lol. and besides, people break the law all the time, thats why theres hacks, cracks, warez, and drug dealers (all bad btw, and dangerous) seriously, idk ne one who follows anywhere close to all the laws.... dcma, thats the same one that says i cant make fairplay copys of my dvds because i have to bypass theyre crapp ass drm... but i do it ne ways

Posted 23 August 2006 - 07:07 PM

embries

InsanelyMac Protégé

Members

53 posts

Now we come to the DCMA. It is not clear to me that if you have bought a copy of OSX and then do things to it for the sole purpose of running it on a different computer, you are doing something illegal. Perhaps you have some source of legal advice, or some cases, which show this. If so, one would be interested to see postings.

Until then, my view is that to copy OSX in violation of copyright is illegal, but as long as you do not do that, you are probably within the law.

Unfortunately in the US, any action a person takes to deliberately circumvent a copy protection scheme is considered an offense (short version minus loopholes and other legal-ese). Check out more here

Furthermore using tools to decrypt information which is encrypted and to which you do not have appropriate authorization can be a felony in many cases (regardless of the owner of the content).

All in all I think we're quite clear on the issue, at least for US citizens. And, by and large, the majority of the people who frequent the board may be subject to US law due to extradition treaties etc (as seen in the extradition of one known hacker and one known spammer from the UK to the US recently). Would Apple take it to that extreme? I think not.

Here's why. First, they might be interested in those people who are responsible for leaked versions of internal software. They're most certainly interested in people who might be making money off of these leaked softwares, or cracked versions. They're also interested in people with whom they have immediate contact and can reprimand or punish with relative ease (i.e. the fired employees who could've technically been sued or possibly charged with crimes persuant to the laws mentioned above). For the rest of us, it would take quite an effort for Apple to "come after us." The relatively low number of us, combined with the fact that the majority of us are actual Apple customers to one extent or another seems to also mitigate Apple's interest in chasing us down.

I think the real "nail in the coffin" is that there's nothing to get here (from a legal standpoint). As many people have argued in countless posts, cracking the OS, hacking CD Keys, and circumventing any copy protection scheme will always be the way of the internet. Apple cannot hope to stop it, and the RIAA proves that the "sue 'em all" strategy doesn't really produce the results. Add that to the fact that many of the people participate here because they "cannot afford a 'real' mac" and Apple would not recieve any compensation from this bunch (certainly not going to get anything if they sue me... well... maybe a couple coffee mugs.... and a couple burned out EDO-DIMMS).

Morally, it's a much more slippery slope. I take OSX86 as a side project to occupy some free time, challenge me to learn a bit more about how the Mac Kernel works, and as a sign of my "nerdy loyalty" to Macs in that I'll even run my OSX on a PC if I can. There are several things we've mentioned that have to be put aside from a legal standpoint in order to allow me to continue with my participation. However, from a moral standpoint, I can only speak for myself. Since the computers I run OSX86 on cannot legally run Mac OSX, and they were already purchased (therefore in no way influence my current buying habits or tendencies) I cannot say that it is immoral to participate. However, thinking theoretically on a larger scale, I can see that there might be a certain number of sales lost to people who feel comfortable with their OSX86 setup and have chosen not to purchase Apple equipment because of that. By and large, I imagine the opposite is true in that people whet their appetite with OSX86 and then eventually buy a Mac system to get the benefits of a genuine Apple product. I bring all this up, because when talking about morality as it regards my obligations to some independant company, monitarily is the only way I can evaluate the relative morality of the decisions.

Economically I think OSX86 has such a small impact on Apple at this time as to be irrelevant. Over the long run that could change. How? If OSX86 project finds a workaround to the EFI and TPM situation, then it creates a very large problem for Apple. If Apple has issues with either EFI or TPM over the longer-run (like Intel stops supporting EFI because Microsoft balks on the idea eventually), what is Apples "back-up" plan to keep the OS secure?

There are more concerns, but I think I've rambled on enough at this point.